Please see the [Transcriber’s Notes] at the end of this text.

A BRIEF
HISTORY OF FORESTRY.
In Europe, the United States
and Other Countries

BY
Bernhard E. Fernow, LL.D.

Dean, Faculty of Forestry
University of Toronto

Revised and Enlarged Edition

University Press
Toronto
and
Forestry Quarterly,
Cambridge, Mass.

Copyright, Canada, 1911,
By B. E. Fernow.

To My Friend of Many Years
ROSSITER W. RAYMOND
whose warm personal interest and enthusiastic
patriotism have from their beginnings
inspired my labors in forwarding
forestry interests in the
United States.

CONTENTS.

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

It has been a great surprise and also a great gratification to the author to see the first edition of this volume exhausted within less than two years since its appearance in complete form. The gratification has come especially because of the opportunity thus afforded of revision, improvement in style, and correction of the many inaccuracies which the first edition contained, excusable only by the manner in which (as explained in the preface of the first edition) the volume had come into existence.

Only in a few cases has it seemed desirable to expand, since the object of the book is not to be complete, but to give as briefly as possible an oversight over a rather large field. The chapter on France has, however, been entirely re-written and considerably enlarged to meet the just criticisms of reviewers; the excellent work of Huffel, full of historical data, which was not available when the first edition was printed, permitting a clearer and fuller statement to be made.

As long as history is in the making, a book of this kind can hardly be brought up to date. This should especially be kept in mind by the reader in regard to the statistics brought in. Since these are only to serve in general to show the magnitude of the interests involved, they may without damage be only approximately accurate, and even of older date.

Some of the chapters have been submitted for criticism and corrections to correspondents in the various countries to which they refer. For the kindly assistance of these friends thanks is due from the author.

Toronto, October, 1911.B. E. Fernow.

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.

This publication is the result of a series of 25 lectures which the writer was invited to deliver before the students of forestry in Yale University as a part of their regular course of instruction during the session of 1904.

Circumstances made it desirable, in the absence of any existing textbooks on the subject, to print at once, for the sake of ready reference, the substance of the lectures while they were being delivered.

This statement of the manner in which the book came into existence will explain and, it is hoped, excuse the crudities of style, which has been also hampered by the necessity of condensation.

The main object was to bring together the information, now scattered and mostly inaccessible to English or American readers: the style has been sacrificed to brevity; it is a book of expanded lecture notes.

In the nature of the case the book does not lay claim to any originality except in the manner of presentation, being merely a compilation of facts gathered mostly from other compilations, official documents and journals.

For none of the countries discussed does a complete work on the history of forests and forestry exist, excepting in the case of Germany, which can boast of a number of comprehensive works on the subject. It was, therefore, possible to treat that country more in extenso. Moreover, it appeared desirable to enlarge upon the history of that country, since it is pre-eminently in the lead in forestry matters and has passed through all the stages of development of forest policies and forestry practice, which, with more or less variations must be repeated in other countries.

Especially the growth of the technical science and art of forestry, which has been developed in Germany for a longer time and to a more refined degree than in other countries, has been elaborated in the chapter relating to that country.

For some of the other countries available sources of information were quite limited. The writer believes, however, that for the purpose of this brief statement the data collected will be found sufficient.

In order to make conditions existing in the different countries and their causes more readily understood it appeared desirable to give very brief historic references to their political and economic development and also brief statements of their general physical conditions.

Present conditions of forest policy and forest administration have sometimes been enlarged upon beyond the requirements of historical treatment.

Ithaca, N.Y., May, 1907.B. E. Fernow.

INTRODUCTORY.

The value of studying the historical development of an economic subject or of a technical art which, like forestry, relies to a large extent upon empiricism, lies in the fact that it brings before us, in proper perspective, accumulated experience, and enables us to analyze cause and effect, whereby we may learn to appreciate the reasons for present conditions and the possibilities for rational advancement.

If there be one philosophy more readily derivable than another from the study of the history of forestry it is that history repeats itself. The same policies and the same methods which we hear propounded to-day have at some other time been propounded and tried elsewhere: we can study the results, broadening our judgment and thereby avoid the mistakes of others.

Nowhere is the record of experience and the historic method of study of more value than in an empiric art like forestry, in which it takes decades, a lifetime, nay a century to see the final effects of operations.

Such study, if properly pursued, tends to free the mind from many foolish prejudices and particularly from an unreasonable partiality for our own country and its customs and methods merely because they are our own, substituting the proper patriotism, which applies the best knowledge, wherever found, to our own necessities.

Forestry is an art born of necessity, as opposed to arts of convenience and of pleasure. Only when a reduction in the natural supplies of forest products under the demands of civilization, necessitates a husbanding of supplies or necessitates the application of art or skill or knowledge in securing a reproduction, or when unfavorable conditions of soil or climate induced by forest destruction make themselves felt does the art of forestry make its appearance. Hence its beginnings occur in different places at different times and its development proceeds at different paces.

In the one country, owing to economic development, the need of an intensive forest management and of strict forest policies may have arrived, while in another, rough exploitation and wasteful practices are still natural and practically unavoidable. And such differences, as we shall see, may even exist in the different parts of the same country.

The origin and growth of the art, then, is dependent on economic and cultural conditions, on various economic development and on elements of environment. The development of the art can only be understood and appreciated through the knowledge of such environment, of such other developments as of agriculture, of industries, of means of transportation, of civilization generally.

Hence we find, for instance, that England, located so as to be accessible by sea from all points of the compass and with oceanic shipping well developed, can apparently dispense with serious consideration of the forest supply question.

Again, we find that more than a century ago fear of a timber famine agitated not only the dense populations of many European countries, but even the scanty population of the United States, in spite of the natural forest wealth which is still supplying us; and not without good reason, for at that time wood was the only fuel and rivers the only means of transportation; hence local scarcity was to be feared and was not unfrequently experienced when accessible forest areas had been exploited. Railroad and canal development and the use of coal for fuel changed this condition on both continents. Now, with improved means of transportation by land and by sea, the questions of wood supply and of forestry development, which at one time were of very local concern, have become world questions, and he who proposes to discuss intelligently forest conditions and forestry movement in one country must understand what is going on in other countries.

As will appear from the study of the following pages, with the exception of some parts of central Europe or of some sporadic attempts elsewhere to regulate forest use, the development of the forestry idea belongs essentially to the 19th century, and more especially to the second half, when the rapid development of railroads had narrowed the world, and the remarkable development of industries and material civilization called for increased draft on forest resources.

Yet we are still largely ignorant as to the extent of available forest area, not only in this country but elsewhere: we do not know whether it be sufficient in extent and yield to furnish a continuous supply for the needs of our civilization, or, if not, for how long a time it will suffice. We can only make very broad statements as to questions of wood supply, and very broad inferences from them as argument for the need of a closer study of forest conditions and of the practice of forestry:

1. Practically, the northern temperate zone alone produces the kinds of wood which enter most largely into our economy, namely the soft conifers and the medium hard woods; most of the woods of the tropics are very hard, fit primarily for ornamental use and hence less necessary. Possibly a change in the methods of the use of wood may also change the relative economic values, but at present the vast forests of the tropical countries are of relatively little importance in the discussion of wood supply for the world.

2. The productive forest area, of the temperate zone, in which the industrial nations are located, has continuously decreased. We shall not be far from wrong in stating this area liberally, to be at present around 2,500 million acres,[1] namely in Europe, 800 million acres; in Asia, 800 million acres; in North America, 900 million acres. How much of this acreage contains available virgin timber, how much is merely potential forest, how much growing crop, it is impossible to state.

[1] The total forest area of the world is supposed to be 3,800 million acres.

3. The civilized wood consuming population of this territory is about 500 million, hence the per capita acreage is still 5 acres. Taking the European countries which now have to import all or part of their consumption (excess over exports), we find that their population is estimated at 180 million and that they use 30 cubic feet of wood per capita, of which 12 cubic feet is log timber; or altogether they use 2,200 million cubic feet of this latter description, of which they import in round numbers 1,000 million at a cost of about 250 million dollars; their forest acreage of 100 million acres being insufficient to produce, even under careful management as in Germany, more than two-thirds of their needs. And the wood consumption in all these nations is growing at the rate of 1¹⁄₂ to 2 per cent. annually.

4. The deficiency is at present supplied by the export countries, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Austria-Hungary, Canada and United States, and these countries themselves also increasing their consumption, are beginning to feel the drain on their forest resources, which are for the most part merely roughly exploited.

5. If we assume a log timber requirement by the 500 million people of 6000 million cubic feet and could secure what France annually produces, namely a little less than 9 cubic feet of such timber per acre, the area supposed to be under forest would amply suffice. But a large part of it is in fact withdrawn from useful production and of the balance not more than 250 million acres at best are as yet under management for continuous production. Hence attention to forestry is an urgent necessity for every industrial nation.

The history of the forest in all forest countries shows the same periods of development.

First hardly recognized as of value or even as personal property, the forest appears an undesirable encumbrance of the soil, and the attitude of the settler is of necessity inimical to the forest: the need for farm and pasture leads to forest destruction.

The next stage is that of restriction in forest use and protection against cattle and fire, the stage of conservative lumbering. Then come positive efforts to secure re-growth by fostering natural regeneration or by artificial planting: the practice of silviculture begins. Finally a management for continuity—organizing existing forest areas for sustained yield—forest economy is introduced.

That the time and progress of these stages of development and the methods of their inauguration vary in different parts of the world is readily understood from the intimate relation which, as has been pointed out, this economic subject bears to all other economic as well as political developments.

At the present time we find all the European nations practicing forestry, although with a very varying degree of intensity. The greatest and most universal development of the art is for good reasons to be found in Germany and its nearest neighbors. Early attention to forest conservancy was here induced by density of population, which enforces intensity in the use of soil, and by the comparative difficulty of securing wood supplies cheaply enough from outside. On the other hand, such countries as the Mediterranean peninsulas by their advantageous situation with reference to importations, with their mild climate and less intensive industrial development, have felt this need less.

Again, the still poorly settled and originally heavily timbered countries of the Scandinavian peninsula and the vast empire of Russia are still heavy exploiters of forest products and are only just beginning to feel the drain on their forest resources; while the United States, with as much forest wealth as Russia, but with a much more intensive industrial development, has managed to reach the stage of need for a conservative forest policy in a shorter time.

From each of the European countries we learn something helpful towards inaugurating such policies, and while, owing to a different historical background and to different political and social conditions, none of their administrative methods and measures may appeal to us, the principles underlying them as well as those underlying their silvicultural methods remain the same; they are applicable everywhere, and can best be recognized and studied in the history of their development.

THE FOREST OF THE ANCIENTS.

Waldgeschichte des Alterthums, by August Seidensticker, 1886, 2 vols., pp. 863, is a most painstaking compilation from original sources of notes regarding the forest conditions and the knowledge of trees, forests and forestry among the ancients. Contains also a full bibliography.

Die Waldwirthschaft der Rœmer, by J. Trurig, collects the knowledge, especially of arboriculture and silviculture, possessed by the Romans.

Forstwissenschaftliche Leistungen der Altgriechen, by Dr. Chloros, in Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 1885, pp. 8.

Archeologia forestale, Dell’ antica storia e giurisprudenza forestale in Italia, by A. di Berenger, 1859.

The forest was undoubtedly the earliest home of mankind, its edible products forming its principal value. Its wild animals developed the hunter, the chase first furnishing means of subsistence and then exhilaration and pleasure. Next, it was the mast and, in its openings, the pasture which gave to the forest its value for the herder, and only last, with the development into settled communities and more highly civilized conditions of life, did the wood product become its main contribution toward that civilization. Finally, in the refinement of cultural conditions in densely settled countries is added its influence on soil, climate and water conditions.

Although there is no written history, there is little doubt that these were the phases in the appreciation of woodlands in the earliest development of mankind, for we find the same phases repeated in our own times in all newly settled countries.

As agriculture develops, the need for farming ground overshadows the usefulness of the forest in all these directions, and it is cleared away; moreover, as population remains scanty, a wasteful use of its stores forms the rule, until necessity arises for greater care in the exploitation, for more rational distribution of farm and forest area, and finally for intentional reproduction of wood as a useful crop.

Correspondingly forest conditions change from the densely forested hills and mountain slopes during the age of the nomad and hunter to the “enclaves” or patches of field and pasture enclosed by the forest of the first farmers, then follows the opening up of the valleys and lowlands, while the hill and mountain farms may return to forest, and finally, with the increase of population and civilization in valleys and plains, a reduction of the forest area and a decrease of forest wealth results.

1. Forest Conditions.

While we have many isolated references to forest conditions and progress of forest exploitation among the ancients in the writings of poets and historians, these are generally too brief to permit us to gain a very clear picture of the progress of forest history; except in isolated cases, they furnish only glimpses, allowing us to fill in the rest to some extent by guess.

That the countries occupied and known to the ancients, even Spain and Palestine, were originally well-wooded there seems little doubt, although in the drier regions and on the drier limestone soils, the forest was perhaps open, as is usual under such conditions, and truly arid, forestless regions were also found where they exist now. Although it has been customary to point out some of the Mediterranean and Eastern countries as having become deserts and depopulated through deforestation, and although this is undoubtedly true for some parts, as Mount Lebanon and Syria, generalization in this respect is dangerous.

We know, however, that by the 11th century before Christ, in Palestine, Asia Minor and Greece, especially in the neighborhood of thriving cities, the forest cover had vanished to a large extent and building timber for the temples at Tyre and Sidon had to be brought long distances from Mount Lebanon, whose wealth of cedar was also freely drawn upon for ship timber and other structures. Although about 465 B.C. Artaxerxes I, having recognized the pending exhaustion of this mountain forest, had attempted to regulate the cutting of timber, the exploitation had by 333 B.C. progressed to such an extent that Alexander the Great found at least the south slope exhausted and almost woodless.

The destruction by axe and fire of the celebrated forests of Sharon, Carmel and Bashan is the theme of the prophet Isaiah writing about 590 B.C.; and the widespread devastation of large forest areas during the Jewish wars is depicted by Josephus. In Greece, the Persian wars are on record as causes of widespread forest destruction. Yet in other parts, as on the island of Cyprus, which, originally densely wooded, had rapidly lost its forest wealth during Cleopatra’s time through the development of mining and metallurgical works, ship building and clearing for farms, the kings seemed to have been able to protect the remnants for a long time, so that respectable forest cover exists even to date.

The Romans seem to have had still a surplus of ship timber at their command in the third and second centuries before Christ, when they did not hesitate to burn the warships of the Carthaginians (203 B.C.) and of the Syrians (189 B.C.), although it may be that other considerations forced these actions. Denuded hills and scarcity of building timber in certain parts are mentioned at the end of the third century before Christ, and that the need for conservative use of timber resources had arrived also appears from the fact that when (167 B.C.) the Romans had brought Macedonia under their sway, the cutting of ship timber in the extensive forests of that country was prohibited. Although at that time the Roman State forests were still quite extensive, it is evident that under the system of renting these for the mast and pasture and for the exploitation of their timber to companies of contractors, their devastation must have progressed rapidly. Yet, on the whole, with local exceptions, Italy remained well wooded until the Christian era.

In Spain, according to Diodorus Siculus (about 100 B.C.), the Southern provinces were densely wooded when about 200 B.C. the Romans first took possession; but soon after a great forest fire starting from the Pyrenees ran over the country, exposing deposits of silver ore, which invited a large influx of miners, the cause of reckless deforestation of the country. The interior of this peninsula, however, was probably always forestless or at least scantily wooded.

While through colonization, exploitation, fire and other abuse, the useful forest area was decimated in many parts, the location of the Mediterranean peninsular countries was such that wood supplies could be readily secured by water from distant parts, and the lignarii or wood merchants of Italy drew their supplies even from India by way of Alexandria; they went for Ash to Asia Minor; for Cedar to Cilicia; Paphlagonia, Liguria and Mauritania became the great wood export countries. It is interesting to note that a regular wood market existed in Rome, as in Jerusalem, and at the former place firewood was sold by the pound (75c per 200 lbs., in Cicero’s time). At the same time that the causes of devastation were at work the forest area also increased in some parts, recovering ground lost during wars and through the neglect of farms by natural seeding; much less by active effort, although planting of trees in parks, vineyards and groves was early practiced to a limited extent.

2. Development of Property.

As to development of forest property we have also only fragmentary information. Nomads do not know soil as property. When they become settled farmers the plowland, the vineyard or olive grove and orchard are recognized as private property, but all the rest remains common property or nobody’s in particular; and even the private property was not at first entirely exclusive. Hence for a long time (and in some parts even to date) the exclusive property right in forests is not fully established. At least the right to hunt over all territory without restriction was possessed by everybody, although an owner might prevent undesirable hunters from entering his property if it was enclosed. The setting aside of hunting grounds for private use came into existence only in later Roman times. But woodland parks, planted or otherwise, like the “paradises” of the Persian kings and the nemora of the Romans and Carthaginians were early a part of the private property of princes and grandees from which others were excluded.

Forests formed a barrier and defense against outsiders, or a hiding place in case of need, hence we find in early times frontier forests, or as the Germans called them “Grenzmarken,” set aside or designated for such purposes and withdrawn from use, and sometimes additionally fortified by ditches and other artificial barriers. Even before the “Grenzmarken” of the Germans the forest was used by Greeks, Romans and still earlier among Asiatic tribes to designate the limit of peoples as well as to serve as a bulwark against attacks from invaders.

Again, the pantheistic ideas of the ancients led to consecrating not only trees but groves to certain gods: holy groves were frequent among the Greeks and Romans, and also among other pagans; the Jews, however, were enjoined to eradicate these emblems of paganism in the promised land with axe and fire, and they did so more or less, removal and re-establishment of holy groves varying according to the religious sentiment of their rulers. Altogether, in Palestine the forests were left to the free and unrestricted use of the Israelites.

Out of religious conceptions and priestly shrewdness arose church property in farms and forests among the Indian Brahmans, the Ethiopians and Egyptians, as also among Greeks and Romans.

It appears that the oriental kings were exclusive owners of all unappropriated or public forests. This was certainly the case with the princes of India and of Persia, and such ownership can be proved definitely in many other parts, as in the case of the forests of Lebanon, of Cyprus, and of various forest areas in Asia Minor.

That in the Greek republics the forests were mainly public property seems to be likely; for Attica, at least, this is true without doubt.

While the first Roman kings seem to have owned royal domains, which were distributed among the people after the expulsion of the kings, the public property which came to the republic as a result of conquest was in most cases at once transferred to private hands, either for homesteads of colonists, or in recognition of services of soldiers and other public officers, or to mollify the conquered, or by sale, or for rent, not to mention the rights acquired by squatters. The rents were usually farmed out to collectors (publicani) or to corporations formed of these. Livy, however, mentions also State forests in which the cutting was regulated, probably by merely reserving the ship timber.

That occasionally single cities and other smaller municipal units owned forest properties in common seems also established.

Private forest properties connected with farm estates existed in Ethiopia, in Arabia, among the Greeks and among the Romans at home as well as in their colonies. Especially pasture woods (saltus) connected with small and large estates (latifundia) into which probably most forest areas near settlements were turned, are frequently mentioned as in private ownership; but also other private forests existed.

The institution of servitudes or rights of user (usus and usus-fructus) and a considerable amount of law regarding the conditions under which they were exercised and regarding their extinguishment were in existence among the Romans in the first centuries of the Christian era.

3. Forest Use.

Restrictions in the use of woods were not entirely absent, but with the exception of reserving ship timber in the State forests, they refer only to special classes of forest.

In the frontier forests reserved for defensive purposes, timber cutting was forbidden. And in the holy groves set aside by private or public declaration no wood could be cut thereafter, being in the latter case considered nobody’s property but sanctified and dedicated to religious use (res sacra), and whoever removed any wood from them was considered a “patricide,” except the cutting be done for purposes of improvement (thinnings) and after a prescribed sacrifice.

With the extension of Christendom the holy trees and groves became the property of the emperors, who sometimes substituted Christian holiness for the pagan, and retained the restrictions which had preserved them. Thus the cutting and selling of cypress and other trees in the holy grove near Antioch, and of Persea trees in Egypt generally (which had been deemed holy under the Pharaos) was prohibited under penalty of five pounds gold, unless a special permit had been obtained.

In Attica as well as in Rome the theory that the State cannot satisfactorily carry on any business was well established. Hence, the State forests were rented out under a system of time rent or a perpetual license, the renters after exploiting the timber usually subletting the culled woods merely for the pasture, except where coppice could be profitably utilized. The officials, with titles referring to their connection with the woods, as the Roman saltuarii or the Greek hyloroi (forestguards) and villici silvarum, the overseers, both grades taken from the slaves, had hardly even police functions.

Forest management proper, i.e., regulated use for continuity, except in coppice, seems nowhere to have been practiced by the ancients, although arboriculture in artificial plantations was well established and occasionally even attempts at replacement in forest fashion seem to have been made deliberately. Not only were many arboricultural practices of to-day well known to them, but also a number of the still unsettled controversies in this field were then already subjects of discussion.

The culling system of taking only the most desirable kinds, trees and cuts, which until recently has characterized our American lumbering methods was naturally the one under which the mixed forest was utilized. Fire used in the pasture woods for the same purposes as with us effectively prevented reproduction in these, and destroyed gradually the remnants of old trees.

Only where for park and hunting purposes some care was bestowed upon the woodland, was reproduction purposely attempted, as, for instance, when in a hunting park an underwood was to be established for game cover.

The treatment of the coppice and methods of sowing and planting were well understood in spite of the lack of natural sciences. Whatever forestry practice existed was based merely on empirical observations and was taught in the books on agriculture as a part of farm practice.

Silviculture was mainly developed in connection with the coppice, which was systematically practiced for the purpose of growing vineyard stakes, especially with chestnut (castanetum), oak (quercetum), and willow (salicetum), while the arbustum denoted the plantings of trees for the support of grapes, and incidentally for the foliage used as cattle feed, still in vogue in modern Italy.

This planting of vine supports was done with saplings of elm, poplar and some other species; by pollarding and by a well devised system of pruning, these were gradually prepared and maintained in proper form for their purpose.

The coppice seems to have been systematically managed in Attica as well as in Italy in regular fellings; the mild climate producing sprouts and root suckers readily without requiring much care, even conifers (cypress and fir) reproducing in this manner.

The oak coppice was managed in 7 year rotation, the chestnut in 5 year, and the willow in 3 year rotation.

Yield and profitableness are discussed, and the practice of thinnings is known, but only for the purpose of removing and using the dead material.

Forest protection was poorly developed: of insects little, of fungi no knowledge existed. Hand-picking was applied against caterpillars, also ditches into which the beetles were driven and then covered; the use of hogs in fighting insects was also known. That goats were undesirable in the woods had been observed. Some remarkable precocious physiological knowledge or rather philosophy existed: it was recognized that frost produces drought and that a remedy is to loosen the soil, aerating the roots, to drain or water as the case might require, and to prune; but also sap letting was prescribed. Against hail, dead owls were to be hung up; against ants, which were deemed injurious, ashes with vinegar were to be applied, or else an ass’s heart.

Curiosities in wood technology were rife and many contradictions among the wood sharps existed, as in our times. Only four elements, earth, water, fire, air, composed all bodies; the more fire in the composition of a wood, the more readily would it decay. Spruce, being composed of less earth and water but more fire and air, is therefore lighter than oak which, mostly composed of earth, is therefore so durable; but the latter warps and develops season splits because on account of its density it cannot take up readily and resists the penetration of moisture.

Wood impregnation, supposed to be a modern invention, was already practiced; cedrium (cedar oil) being used as well as a tar coating or immersion in seawater for one year, to secure greater durability.

4. Literature.

As regards literature, we find in Greece, besides what can be learned incidentally from the historians Herodotus and Xenophon and from the natural history of Aristotle, the first work on plant history and wood technology, if not forestry, in 18 volumes by Theophrastus (390-286 B.C.), a pupil of Aristotle and Plato.

Among the Romans, besides a number of historians, at least three writers before Christ discussed in detail agriculture and, in connection with it, tree culture; namely, Cato (234-149 B.C.) who wrote an excellent work De re rustica, in 162 chapters; Varro (116-26 B.C.), also De re rustica, in three books; and Vergilius Maro (70-19 B.C.), who in his Georgica records in six books the state of knowledge at that time. Of the many writers on these subjects who came in the Christian era there are also three to be mentioned, namely, Cajus Plinius Major (23-79 A.D.), who in his Historia naturalis, in 37 books, discusses also the technique of silviculture; Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (about 50 A.D.), with 12 books, De re rustica, and one book De arboribus, the former being the best work of the ancients on the subject; and Palladius, writing about 350 A.D., 13 books, De re rustica, which in the original and in translations was read until past the middle ages.

Only a few references which exhibit the state of knowledge on arboricultural subjects among the Romans as shown in this literature may be cited, some of which knowledge was also developed in Greece and found application, more or less, throughout the Roman empire from India to Spain.

Nursery practice was already well known to Cato, while Varro knew, besides sowing and planting, the art of grafting and layering, and Columella discusses in addition pruning and pollarding (which latter was practiced for securing fuelwood), and the propriety of leaving the pruned trees two years to recuperate before applying the knife again.

The method of wintering acorns and chestnuts in sand, working them over every 30 days and separating the poor seed by floating in water, was known to Columella and, indeed, he discusses nursery management with minute detail, even the advantages of transplants and of doubly transplanted material. The question whether to plant or to sow, the preference of fall or spring planting with distinction for different species and localities are matters under his consideration; and preference of sowing oak and chestnut instead of transplanting is pointed out and supported by good reasons.

Pliny, the Humboldt of the ancients, recognizes tolerance of different species, the need of different treatment for different species, the desirability of transplanting to soil and climatic conditions similar to those to which the tree was accustomed, and of placing the trees as they stood with reference to the sun. But, to be sure, he also has many curious notions, as for instance his counsel to set shallow rooted trees deeper than they stood before, his advice not to plant during rain, or windy weather and his laying much stress on the phases of the moon as influencing results.

While then the ancients were not entirely without silvicultural knowledge, indeed possessed much more than is usually credited to them, the need of a forest policy and of a systematic forest management in the modern sense had not arisen in their time; the mild climate reducing the necessity of fuelwood and the accessibility by water to sources of supply for naval and other construction delaying the need for forest production at home.

There is little doubt, that some of the agricultural and silvicultural knowledge and practice of the Romans found entrance among the German tribes who, especially the Allemanni, came into contact with the Romans in their civilized surroundings during the fourth century.

GERMANY.

Besides a dozen or more earlier histories of forestry in Germany, some of which date back to the beginning of the 19th century, there are two excellent modern compilations, namely:

Geschichte des Waldeigenthums, der Waldwirtschaft und Forstwissenschaft in Deutschland, by August Bernhardt, 1872-75, 3 Vols., 1062 pp., a classic, which treats especially extensively of political and economic questions having a bearing on the development of forestry; and

Handbuch der Forst- und Jagdgeschichte Deutschlands, by Adam Schwappach, 1886, 2 Vols., 892 pp., which appeared as a second edition of Bernhardt’s history, abridging the political history and expanding the forestry part. This volume has been mainly followed in the following presentation of the subject. In condensed form this history is also to be found in Lorey’s Handbuch der Forstwissenschaft, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 143-210.

In Schwappach’s history a full list of original sources is enumerated. These are, for the oldest period, Roman writings, which are unreliable; the laws of the various German tribes; the laws of kings (Capitularia); the laws of villages and other territorial districts; “Weisthümer” (judgments); inventories of properties (especially of churches and cloisters); documents of business transactions and chronicles. For the time after the Middle ages the most important source is found in the Forest Ordinances of princes and other forest owners; forest laws; police orders; business documents, and finally special literature.

It is generally conceded that both the science and art of forestry are most thoroughly developed and most intensively applied throughout Germany. It must, however, not be understood that perfection has been reached anywhere in the practical application of the art, or that the science, which like that of medicine has been largely a growth of empiricism, is in all parts safely based; nor are definitely settled forest policies so entrenched, that they have become immutable. On the contrary, there are still mismanaged and unmanaged woods to be found, mainly those in the hands of farmers and other private owners; there are still even in well managed forests practices pursued which are known not to conform to theoretical ideals, and others which lack a sure scientific foundation; and while the general policy of conservative management and of State interest in the same is thoroughly established, the methods of attaining the result are neither uniform throughout the various States which form the German Federation, nor positively settled anywhere. In other words, the history of forestry is still, even in this most advanced country, in the stage of lively development.

For the student of forestry the history of its development in Germany is of greatest interest not only because his art has reached here the highest and most intensive application, but because all the phases of development through which other countries have passed or else will eventually have to pass are here exemplified, and many if not most of the other countries of the world have more or less followed German example or have been at least influenced by German precedent. There is hardly a policy or practice that has not at some time in some part been employed in the fatherland of forestry.

One reason for this rich historical background is the fact, that Germany has never been a unit, that from its earliest history it was broken up into many independent and, until modern times, only loosely associated units, which developed differently in social, political and economic direction. This accounts also for the great variety of conditions existing even to-day in the 26 principalities which form the German empire.

Politically, it may be mentioned that out of the very many independent principalities into which the German territory had been divided, variable in number from time to time, the 26 which had preserved their autonomy formed in 1871 the federation of States, known as the German Empire. Each of these has its own representative government including the forest administration, very much like the state governments of the United States; only the army and navy, tariff, posts, telegraphs, criminal law and foreign policy, and a few other matters are under the direct jurisdiction of the empire, represented in the Reichstag, the Bundesrath, and the Emperor.

The 208,830 square miles of territory,[2] which supports a population of about 60 million people, still contain a forest area of around 35 million acres (26% of the land area) or .61 acre per capita, which although largely under conservative management has long ago ceased to supply by its annual increment (somewhat over 50 cubic feet per acre) the needs of the population; the imports during the last 50 years since 1862, when Germany began to show excess of imports over exports, having grown in volume at the average rate of 10% to now round 380 million cubic feet (45 million dollars) or nearly 15% of the consumption.

[2] The statistics in this book do not pretend to be more than approximations.

The larger part of Germany, two thirds of the territory and population is controlled by modern Prussia, with a total forest area of 20 million acres; Bavaria comes next with one seventh of the land area and 6 million acres of forest; the five larger states of Wurttemberg, Baden, Saxony, Mecklenburg and Hesse, occupying together another seventh of the territory with 5 million acres of forest. The balance of the area is divided among the other 19 states.

Fifty per cent. of Germany roughly speaking, is plains country, the larger part in the northern and eastern territory of Prussia; 25% is hill country, mostly in West and Middle Germany; and 25% is mountain country, the larger portion in the southern states.

There are at best only five species of timber of high economic general importance, the (Scotch) pine which covers large areas in the northern sandy plain and the lighter soils in the south; the (Norway) spruce and (Silver) fir which form forests in the southwestern and other mountain regions and represent, in mixture with broadleaf forest, a goodly proportion in the northeastern lowlands; the (English) oak, of which botanically two species are recognized; and the beech. The last two are the most important hardwoods found throughout the empire, but especially highly developed in the west and southwest. In addition, there are half a dozen species of minor or more local importance, but the five mentioned form the basis of the forestry systems.

The history of the development of forestry in Germany may be divided into periods variously. Bernhardt recognizes six periods; Schwappach makes four divisions, namely, the first, from the earliest times to the end of the Carlovingians (911), which is occupied mainly with the development of forest property conditions; the second, to the end of the Middle Ages (1500), during which the necessity of forest management begins to be sporadically recognized; the third, to the end of the 18th century, during which the foundation for the development of all branches of forestry is laid; the fourth, the modern period, accomplishing the complete establishment of forestry methods in all parts of Germany. For the later historian it would be proper to recognize a fifth period from about 1863, when, by the establishment of experiment stations, a breaking away from the merely empiric basis to a more scientific foundation of forestry practice was begun.

For our purposes we shall be satisfied with a division into three periods, namely: first, to the end of the middle ages, when, with the discoveries of America and other new countries, an enlargement of the world’s horizon gave rise to a change of economic conditions; second, to the end of the eighteenth century, when change of political and economic thought altered the relation of peoples and countries; third, the modern period, which exhibits the practical fruition of these changes.

I. From Earliest Times to End of Middle Ages.

Many of the present conditions, especially those of ownership, as well as the progress in the development both of forest policy and of forest management, can be understood only with some knowledge of the early history of the settlement of the country.[3]

[3] FELIX DAHN, Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen Völker, 1881.

As is well known, Aryan tribes from central Asia had more than a thousand years before Christ begun to overrun the country. These belonged to the Keltic (Celtic) or Gaelic race which had gradually come to occupy partly or wholly, France, Spain, northern Italy, the western part of Germany and the British Islands. They were followed by the Germani (supposedly a Celtic word meaning neighbor or brother), also Aryan tribes, who appeared at the Black Sea about 1000 B.C., in Switzerland and Belgium about 100 B.C. These were followed by the Slovenes, Slovaks, or Wends, crowding on behind, disputing and taking possession of the lands left free by, or conquered from the Germani. Through these migrations, by about 400 A.D., the whole of Western Europe seems to have been fully peopled with these tribes of hunters and herders. The mixture of the different elements of victors and vanquished led to differentiation into three classes of people, economically and politically speaking, namely the free, the unfree (serfs or slaves), and the freedmen—an important distinction in the development of property rights.

1. Development of Property Conditions.

The German tribes who remained conquerors were composed of the different groups of Franks, Saxons, Thuringians, Bajuvarians, Burgundians, etc., each composed of families aggregated into communal hordes with an elected Duke (dux, Herzog, Graf, Fürst), organized for war, each in itself a socialistic and economic organization known as Mark, owning a territory in common, the members or Markgenossen forming a republic. Outside of house, yard and garden, there was no private property; the land surrounding the settlement, known as Allmende, (commons) was owned in common, but assigned in parcels to each family for field use, the assignment first changing from year to year, then becoming fixed. The outlying woods, known as the Marca or Grenzwald, forming debatable ground with the neighboring tribes, were used in common for hunting, pasturing, fattening of hogs by the oak mast, and for other such purposes, rather than for the wood of which little was needed. In return for the assignment of the fields, the free men, who alone were fully recognized citizens of the community, had to fulfil the duties of citizens and especially of war service.

Only gradually, by partition, immigration and uneven numerical development, was the original Mark or differentiation into family associations destroyed and a more heterogeneous association of neighbors substituted. At the same time, inequality of ownership arose especially from the fact that those who owned a larger number of slaves (the conquered race) had the advantage in being able to clear and cultivate more readily new and rough forest ground. Those without slaves would seek assistance from those more favored, exchanging for rent or service their rights to the use of land; out of this relationship a certain vassalage and inequality of political rights developed.

Under the influence of Roman doctrine, a new aspect regarding newly conquered territory gained recognition, by which the Dukes as representatives of the community laid claim to all unseated or unappropriated land; they then distributed to their followers or donated to the newly established church portions of this land, so that by the year 900 A.D., a complete change in property relations had been effected. By that time the large baronial estates of private owners had come into existence which were of such great significance in the economic history of the Middle Ages, changing considerably the status of the free men, and changing the free mark societies into communities under the dominion of the barons.

The first real king, who did not, however, assume the title, was Clovis, a Duke of the Franks, who had occupied the lower Rhine country. About 500 A.D., picking a quarrel with his neighbors, the Allemanni, he subdued them and aggrandized himself by taking their Mark. In this way he laid the foundation for a kingdom which he extended by conquest mainly to the westward, but also by strategy to the eastward, the warlike tribes of Saxons and other Germans conceding in a manner the leadership of the Franks.

A real kingdom, however, did not arise until Charlemagne, in 772, became the ruler, extending his government far to the East.

At times, the kingdom was divided into the western Neustria, and the eastern Austria, and then again united, but it was only when the dynasty of Charlemagne became extinct with the death of Louis the Child (911), that the final separation from France was effected, and Germany became a separate kingdom, the eastern tribes between the Rhine and Elbe choosing their own king, Conrad, Duke of Franconia. There were then five tribes or nations, each under its own Duke and its own laws, comprising this new kingdom, namely the Franks, Suabians, Bavarians, Saxons on the right, and the Lorainers on the left bank of the Rhine, while the country East of the Elbe river was mostly occupied by Slovenians.

With Clovis began the new order of things which was signalized by the aggrandizement of kings, dukes and barons.

In addition to the rule regarding the ownership of unseated lands there developed, also under Roman law doctrine, the conception of seignorial right, i.e., the power of the king to jurisdiction over his property. This right, first claimed by the duke or king for himself, is then transferred with the territory given to his friends and vassals, who thereby secure for themselves his powers and jurisdiction, immunity from taxes and from other duties, as well as the right to exact taxes and services from others, the favored growing into independent knights and barons.

The forest, then, originally was communal property and the feeling of this ownership in common remains even to the present day. Indeed, actually it remained in most cases so until the 13th century, although the changes noted had their origin in the 7th century when the kings began to assert their rights of princely superiority.

In these earlier ages, the main use of the forests was for the hunt, the mast and the pasture, and since wood was relatively plentiful, forest destruction was the rule. Those who became possessed of larger properties through the causes mentioned tried to secure an increased value of their possessions by colonization, in which especially the slaves or serfs were utilized. These often became freedmen, paying rent in product or labor, and acquiring the rights of usufruct in the property, out of which developed the so-called servitudes or rights of user, the praedium of the Romans, a limited right to use the property of another.

With the development of private property there naturally also developed the right of preventing the hunting on such lands, this being then their main use. This exclusive right to the chase or hunt we find recognized as a part of the property of the kings and barons in the 8th century, when the kings forbade trespass under penalty of severe fines; the king’s ban (interdiction) of 60 shillings being imposed upon the trespassers. Indeed, by the end of the 8th century the word Forst (voorst—foresta) which until then had been used merely to denote the king’s property was exclusively used to designate not necessarily woodland (the latter being referred to as silva or nemus), but any territory in which the hunt had been reserved.

This right to reserve the chase and the fishing, that is, to establish banforests was in the 10th century extended by the kings to territory not belonging to them, the right to the chase being according to the Roman doctrine a regal right over any property. Under this conception fields and pastures, woods and waters, and whole villages with their inhabitants became “inforested” grounds. The Norman kings, imbued with a passion for the chase, exercised this right widely, especially in England; the forests of Dean, Epping and the New Forest being such inforested territories, the inhabitants of which were placed under special “forest laws,” and adjudged by special “forest courts.”

Presently the king’s right of ban was granted with the land grants to his barons and to the clergy. Banforests also grew up through owners of properties placing themselves and their possessions under the protection of kings or bishops or other powerful barons and giving in exchange this hunting right, and in various other ways. At the same time the headmen of the Mark (Obermärker, Graf, Waldgraf), who from being elected officers of the people had become officials of the king, began to exercise, by virtue of their office, the jurisdiction of the king, and declaring the ban for their own or their friends’ benefit, excluded the Märker from their ancient right to hunt and fish freely over the territory of the Mark.

While in this way the freedom of the communal owners was undermined, the institution of banforests had nevertheless its value in that it led to forest protection, restriction in forest use and restriction in clearing, all this, to be sure, merely for the benefit of the chase. Special officers to guard the rights of the king, forestarii, chosen from the free and freedmen, and also superior officers, forestmasters, were instituted, to administer the chase and enforce the restrictions which went with it.

Gradually, with the loss of property rights, there came also a change in the political rights of the märker or commoners, through the large barons interfering with self-government, assuming for themselves the position of Obermärker, appointing the officials, and issuing strict forest ordinances to regulate the cutting of wood; finally, the original right which belonged to every commoner of supplying himself with wood material, became dependent upon permission in each case, and thus his title to ownership became doubtful.

Undoubtedly also through the influence of Roman institutions with which the Franks under their Merovingian kings came into close contact, there arose that social and political institution which became finally known as the feudal system. By the grants of lands which the kings made out of their estates to their kinsmen and followers with the understanding that they would be faithful and render service to their masters, a peculiar relationship grew up, based on land tenure, the land so granted being called a fief or feud, and the relationship being called vassality or vassalage. This vassalage denoted the personal tie between the grantor and grantee, the lord and the vassal; the lord having the obligation to defend the vassal, and the vassal to be a faithful follower of his lord. Similar relationship arose from the surrender by landowners of their estates to the church or to other powerful barons, to be received back again as fiefs and to be held by them as tenants in exchange for rent or service. In this way a complete organization of society developed in which, from the king down to the lowest landowner, all were bound together by obligation of service and defence, both the defence and service being regulated by the nature and extent of the fief. Finally, all kinds of property of whatever nature, as well as official positions which would give an income, were subject to be treated as fiefs. The obligations of the recipient were of various nature, but finally service in army or court became the main one, giving rise to the class of knights (Ritter) or barons, while the fiefs to the small farmer gave rise to the class of peasants (Bauern, this name appearing first in 1106 under Conrad II).

The fiefs of the higher class, while at first given only to the individual, became early hereditary, and hereditary succession to estates and offices generally became the rule. Primogeniture in the succession to the estates did then not as in England prevail in Germany; instead, either tenancy in common, or else equal division among the sons was practised. As a result the very many small principalities came into existence in the 14th and 15th centuries, these growing smaller and smaller by subdivision. The first to institute the primogeniture rule by law was the house of Brandenburg (in the 15th century).

In addition to the class of peasants and knights, there came into existence a third class, the burghers, when, by the order of Conrad I in the beginning of the 10th century, towns were built with walls and towers for defence against the encroachments of the Huns, who endangered the eastern frontier Mark. In order to encourage the settlement of these towns, any slave moving to town was declared a freeman; and the cities became free republics; gifts of land, including forest areas, were made to the cities, and the development of industries was encouraged in every way. These cities, favored by the kings, and, having become rich and powerful, in the later quarrels of the kings with the lawless nobility, gave loyal support with money and arms. In return for their loans, the forest properties of the kings were often mortgaged to the burghers; and, failing of redemption, were often forfeited to them. In this way and through purchases the city forests came into existence.

Still other property conditions arose when, under Otto the Great (960), colonization of the eastern country beyond the Elbe was pushed. In these cases, the Mark institution was absent, although the colonists did often become part owners in the king’s forest, or acquired parts of it as common property, or else secured rights of user in the nearest royal forest.

By the end of the period, due to these various developments, a great variety of property conditions in forest areas had developed, most of which continue to the present time, namely royal properties, which by the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth were in part to become state property; princely and lordly possessions under separate jurisdiction, with or without entail, and mostly encumbered with rights of user; allodial possessions (held independent of rent or service); municipal possessions owned by city corporations; communal properties, the remnants of the Mark; and farmers’ woodlots (Bauernwald), resulting from partitions of the Mark.

All these changes from the original communal property conditions did not, of course, take place without friction, the opposition often taking shape in peasants’ revolts; hundreds of thousands of these being killed in their attempts to preserve their commons, forests and waters free to all, to re-establish their liberty to hunt, fish and cut wood, and to abolish tithes, serfdom and duties.

2. Forest Treatment.

As stated, the German tribes which settled the country were herders and hunters, who only gradually developed into farmers while the country was being settled. At first, therefore, as far as the forest did not need to give way to farm lands, its main use was in the exercise of the chase and for pasture, and especially for the raising and fattening of hogs; the number of hogs which could be driven into a forest serving as an expression of the size of such a forest. Oak and beech furnishing the mast were considered the preferable species. It is natural, therefore, that, wood being plentiful and the common property of all, the first regulation of forest use had reference to these, now minor benefits of forest property, as for instance the prohibition of cutting mast trees, which was enforced in early times. The first extensive regulation of forest use came however, from the exercise of the royal right of the ban and merely for the avowed purpose of protecting the chase.

Real forest management, however, did not exist, the forestarii mentioned in these early times being nothing but policemen guarding the hunting rights of the kings or other owners. The conception that wood on the stump was of the same nature as other property and its removal theft had not yet become established: “quia non res possessa sed de ligno agitur” (wood not being a possessed thing), a conception which still pervades the laws of modern times to some extent.

The necessity of clearing farm lands for the growing population continued, even in the western, more densely populated sections, into the 12th and 13th centuries. The cloisters were especially active in colonizing and making farm land with the use of axe and fire, such cloisters being often founded as mere land speculations. Squatters, as with us, were a frequent class of colonists, and in eastern Prussia continued even into the 17th and 18th centuries to appropriate forest land without regard to property rights.

The disturbed ownership conditions, which we have traced, led also often to wasteful slashing, especially in the western territory, while colonization among the Slavs of the Eastern sections led to similar results. In the 12th century, however, here and there appear the first signs of greater necessity for regulating and restricting forest use in the Mark forest, and for improvement in forest conditions with the purpose of insuring wood supplies.

In that century, division of the Mark forest begins for the alleged reason that individual ownership would lead to better management and less devastation. In the 12th and 13th centuries also, stricter order in the fellings and in forest use was insisted upon in many places. In the forest ordinances of the princes and barons, which, of course, have always reference to limited localities, we find prescriptions like the following: The amount to be cut is to be limited to the exact needs of each family and the proper use of the wood is to be inspected; the timber is to be marked, must be cut in a given time and be removed at once; only dry wood is to be used for fuel and the place and time for gathering it is specially designated, similar to the present practice. The best oak and beech are to be preserved (this, however, merely with reference to the mast), and in the Alps we find already provisions to reserve larch and pine. The charcoal industry is favored (because of easier transportation of its product), but permitted only under special precautions. Bark peeling and burning for potash is forbidden. The pasture is regulated with regard to the young growth, and sheep and goats are excluded.

Such measures are, to be sure, found only here and there where local conditions gave rise to a fear of a timber famine; such communities may also be found making attempts to protect themselves against reduction of home supplies by forbidding the export of wood from their territory. An amusing restriction of this kind is found at Altenstadt where the bakers were forbidden to bake bread for any but the citizens of the town.

The first ordinance prohibiting for clearings is found at Lorsch in the Rhenish country in 1165, and other ordinances with such prohibition are on record in other parts in the 13th century. In 1237, at Salzburg, clearings were prohibited in the interest of the salt mines, “so that the cut forest may grow up to wood again,” and also in other parts where mining interests made a special demand for props or charcoal the regulation of forest use was begun early.

The difficulties of transportation in the absence of roads rendered local supply of more importance than at present, and this accounts for the early measures to secure more economical use while distant woods were still plentiful but unavailable.

While in the 12th and 13th centuries a merely restrictive and regulative, or else a let-alone policy, “allowing the wood to grow up,” prevailed, we find in the 14th century the first beginnings of an attempt at forest extension or recuperation.

In 1309, Henry VII ordered the reforestation of a certain stripped area by sowing. Of the execution of this order we have no record, but the first actually executed plantation on record is that by the city of Nuremberg, in 1368, where several hundred acres of burned area were sowed with pine, spruce and fir; and there is also a record that in 1449 this crop was harvested. In 1420, the city of Frankfort on the Main followed this example, relying on the Nuremberg seed dealer, whose correspondence is extant and who was invited to go to Frankfort for advice how to proceed. He sowed densely in order to secure clear boles, but expressed the opinion that the plants could not be transplanted; he also relied on the phases of the moon for his operations.

The planting of hardwoods seems to have been begun much later; the first reference to it coming from the cloister and city of Seligenstadt, which agreed in 1491 to reforest annually 20 to 30 acres with oak.

Natural regeneration by coppice was in quite general practice and proved satisfactory enough for fuelwood production. The system of coppice with standards was also frequently practised, the standards, 20 or 30 to the acre, being “reserved for the lord.”

In the timber forest, the unregulated selection system was continued generally through the period, although in 1454 we find in the Harz Mountains a transition to a seed tree management, a few seed trees or groups of seed trees being left on the otherwise cleared area, somewhat in the manner of the French méthode à tire et-aire. Toward the end of the 15th century we find here and there a distinction made between timber forest, where no firewood is to be cut, and “leaf forest” which is to serve the latter purpose, and is to be treated as coppice.

Toward the end of the period we find, however, various provisions which are unquestionably dictated by the fear of a scarcity of timber. The discovery that pasture prevents natural regeneration led to a prohibition of pasturing in the newly cut felling areas. In 1488, we find already a diameter limit of 12 inches—just as is being advocated in the United States now—as a basis for conservative exploitation, the city of Brunswick buying stumpage, and in the contract being limited to this diameter, and in addition obligated to leave 15 oaks or aspen per acre for seed trees.

Attempts at regulating the use of a given forest by division into felling areas are recorded in 1359, when the city forest of Erfurt, 286 acres, was divided into seven felling areas. It is questionable whether this referred to a coppice with short rotation or whether a selection forest with seven periodic areas is meant.

We see, then, that the first sporadic and, to be sure, crude beginnings of a forest management in Germany may be traced back to the 14th and 15th centuries; but it took at least 250 to 350 years before such management became general.

Outside of the information found scattered in forest ordinances, instructions and prescriptions of various kinds there is no forestry literature to be recorded from this period except one single book, published about the year 1300, by an Italian, Petrus de Crescentiis, which was translated into German. It was merely a scholastic compilation on agriculture and allied subjects, mostly cribbed from old Roman writers and without value for German conditions.

II. First Development of Forestry Methods.
(Period 1500 to 1800.)

The period following the middle ages marks the gradual changes from the feudal system to the modern State organizations and to considerable change of ownership conditions and forest treatment. Various causes which led to an increased development of industrial life were also instrumental in hastening the progress of forest destruction. At the same time, during this period the germs and embryonic beginnings of every branch of forestry, real forestry policy, forestry practice and forestry science are to be noted. By the end of this period, preparatory to more modern conditions, we find organized technical forest administrations, well developed methods of silviculture and systems of forest management.

1. Development of Forest Property Conditions.

A number of changes in the conceptions of political relations, in methods of life and of political economy brought further changes in property conditions on the same lines as those prevailing in the 14th and 15th centuries. These changes were especially influenced by the spread of Roman law doctrine regarding the rights of the governing classes; by the growth of the cities, favoring industrial development and changing methods of life; by the change from barter to money management, favored by the discovery of America, by other world movements, and by the resulting changes in economic theory.

Through the discovery of the new world and the influx of gold and silver that came with it gave impetus to industry and commerce of the cities; the rapid increase of money capital increased extravagance and induced a desire for amassing wealth, which changed modes of life, changed policies and systems of political economy.

The fiscal policy of the many little principalities was dominated by a desire to get a good balance of trade by fostering exports of manufactures, but forbidding exports of raw materials like forest products, also by forbidding imports, subsidizing industries, fixing prices by law, and taking in general an inimical attitude towards outsiders except in so far as they sent gold and silver into the country.

This so-called mercantilistic system, which saw wealth not in labor and its products but in horded gold and silver, had also full sway in England under Cromwell, and in France under Colbert’s influence. This fiscal policy, which was bent upon bringing cash into the country, led, under the direction of servile officials, to oppressive measures. A reaction naturally followed, when it was pointed out that the real wealth of a nation lies in its natural resources and in its labor. But this so-called physiocratic doctrine had little practical influence except to prepare men’s minds for the reception of the teachings of Adam Smith at the end of the period.

The doctrine of the Roman law, deified by the jurists and commentators, undermined the national conceptions and institutions of free citizenship and of existing property relations; courts, legislation and administration were subject to their sway, and this influence lasted, in spite of reactions, until the end of the 18th century. Under it the doctrine of the imperium—the seignorage or superior power of the princes (Hoheitsrecht)—was further developed into the dominium terrae, i.e., superior ownership of all the land, which gives rise to the title and the exercise of the function of “Landesherren,” masters of the land, and confers the privilege of curtailing and even discontinuing private property rights. To sustain their position in each of the state units, a restriction of the autonomy of churches and cloisters, of the Mark and of the vassals became needful to the princes. This was secured by taking the first under their protection, by making themselves Obermärkers, and by changing vassals who held office in fief into employes (Beamte). For a time the three privileged classes of prelates, knights and burghers, combined in the Landstand or Landtag, participated in some of the functions of government, especially in raising and administering taxes, but by the second half of the 14th century the princes had become absolute, and the doctrine of the Hoheitsrecht was firmly established.

Under this doctrine, the historic position of the Mark is perverted and instead of being the common property of the people, it becomes the property of the prince, on which he graciously permits the usufruct; for, forest, pasture and water (Wald, Weide, Wasser) are res publicae, hence ownerless and at the disposal of the king. Through this new construction of relationship, as well as through the same machinations and tricks which the princes as Obermaerker or headmen of the Mark had employed during the foregoing period in usurping power, and partly through voluntary dissolution was the decadence of the social, economic and political organization of the Mark gradually completed.

The original usufruct of a property held in common is explained in the Roman sense as a precarium or servitude, and from being a right of the whole organization becomes a right of the single individual or group of individuals. In this way the socialistic basis of the Mark is destroyed. Through the exercise of the Forsthoheit, i.e., the superior right of the prince over all forest property, by the appointment of the officials instead of their election, by issuance of ordinances, in short, by the usurpation of the legislative and police power, the political power of the Mark is broken and the Thirty Years’ War completes the breakdown; the pride of the burgher and the peasant is gone, their autonomy destroyed and their economic and political organizations sink into mere corporations based on land tenure, which, according to Roman doctrine come under the regulation of the State or Prince.

The nobility move into the cities and leave the administration of their estates to officials who are constantly pressed to furnish the means for the extravagant life of their masters. These in turn harass and oppress the peasantry, who finally become bondsmen, Gutshörige (bound to the glebe) and lose their independence entirely. These, briefly, are the steps by which the changes, social and economic, progressed.

Reforms in this situation of the peasantry began first in Prussia in 1702, when bondage was abolished for all those who could purchase their houses and farms from the gentry. As few had the means to do so, the result was the creation of a proletariat, hitherto unknown because under the old feudal system the lord had to feed his impoverished bondsmen from which he was now absolved.

Changes in forest property in particular were brought about by the increase of princely property through the various methods of exercising the seignorage. Especially after the Thirty Years’ War ownerless tracts falling under this right were plentiful. In addition, wherever waste lands grew up to wood, they were claimed by the princes:

“Wenn das Holz dem Ritter reicht an den Sporn
Hat der Bauer sein Recht verlorn.”

When wood has grown up to the spur of the knight, the peasant has lost his right.

Some additions came from the secularization of church and cloister property, and others by the slices which the princes as Obermärker secured from the Mark forests by various artifices. It is these properties, which in Prussia were turned over by the King to the State in 1713, and by other princes, not until the 19th century.

The same means which the princes employed were used by the landed gentry to increase their holdings especially at the expense of the Mark from which in their capacity of Obermärker they secured portions by force or intrigue.

The peasants’ forest property—the Mark forest—had by the 19th century been almost entirely dismembered, part having come into the hands of the princes and barons, part having been divided among the Märker, and part having become corporation forest in the modern sense.

Partition had become desirable when the restrictions of use which were ordered for the good of the forest became unendurable under the rigid rule of appointed officials, but the expected improvement in management which was looked for from partition and private ownership was never realized.

After the Thirty Years’ War the free cities were impoverished and their autonomy undermined by Roman doctrine. From free republics they became mere corporations under the supervision of appointed officials, and experienced decadence in political as well as material directions. Hence, no increase in city forest took place except through division of the Mark forest in which cities had been co-owners, and through secularized properties of cloisters.

The worst feature, from the standpoint of forest treatment, which resulted from these changes in property conditions and relationship, was the growth of the pernicious servitudes or rights of user, which were either conferred to propitiate the powerless but dangerous peasantry, or evolved out of the feudal relations. From the 16th to the 19th centuries these servitudes grew to such an extent that in almost every forest some one outside of the owner had the right to use parts of it, either the pasture, or the litter, or certain classes or sizes of wood.

These rights have proved the greatest impediment to the progress of forestry until most recent times, and only within the last few decades have the majority of them been extinguished by legal process or compromise.

2. Forest Conditions.

Under the exercise of these various rights and the uncertainty of property conditions, the forest conditions naturally deteriorated continuously until the end of the 18th century; the virgin woods were culled of their wealth and then grew up to brush, as is usual in the United States.

Every forest ordinance began with complaints regarding the increasing forest devastation, and predicted a timber famine in view of the increasing population, increasing industry and commerce, and hence increased wood consumption. Especially along the water routes, which furnished the means of transportation, the available supplies were ruthlessly exploited. More serious enemies than the exploitation of the timber proved the pasturing of cattle, the removal of the litter, and above all, the fires.

Towards the end of the 16th century, ordinances against forest fires began to be enacted; yet, as late as 1778, the necessity of keeping the rides or fire lanes open in the forests of Eastern Prussia is justified by the statement that “otherwise the still constantly recurring fires could not be checked.” At another place it is stated that “not a single acre of forest could be found in the province that had not been burnt in former or later times,” and that “the people are still too much accustomed to the ruthless use of fires, so that no punishment can stop them.”

Other causes of devastation were the Thirty Years’ War, the wars of the 18th century, and the loss of interest in the forest by the peasants after the collapse of the Mark. These had often to steal what they needed, and their depredations were increased by the desire to revenge themselves on the landed proprietors for the oppressions to which they were subjected. The increase in game, which was fostered by the landed gentry, did much damage to the young growths, and the increase in the living expenses of the nobility who mostly abandoned country for town had to be met by increased exploitation.

By the end of the middle ages the reduction of forest area had proceeded so far that it was generally believed desirable to restrict the making of clearings to exceptional necessities, except in the northeastern parts and in the distant mountain districts.

Yet a growing population increased the need for farm land, and since intensive use of the existing farm area was not attempted until the end of the 18th century, the forest had to yield still further.

3. Methods of Restriction in Forest Use.

All ordinances issued by the princes to regulate the management of their properties contain the prescription, that permission of the Landesherr is necessary for clearings, and that abandoned fields growing up to wood are to be kept as woodland; this partly for timber needs, partly for considerations of the chase. Still, Frederick the Great in colonizing East Prussia, expressed himself to the effect that he cared more for men than for wood, and enjoined his officials to colonize especially the woods far from water, which entailed even more waste of wood than where means of transportation allowed at least partial marketing.

Improvident clearings proceeded even under his reign on the Frische Nehrung between Danzig and Pillau, and started the shifting sands of that peninsula.

In the absence of all knowledge as regards the extent of existing supplies or of the increment, and with poor means of transportation, at least local distress was imminent.

To stave off a threatening timber scarcity, regulation in the use of wood was attempted by the forest ordinances, even to the extent of forbidding the hanging out of green brush to designate a drinking hall, or the cutting of May trees,—similar to our crusade in the United States against the use of Christmas trees. A diameter limit to which trees might be permitted to be cut, was also frequently urged. Regulation of forest use did not confine itself to the princely properties alone, but, in the interest of the whole, the restrictions were extended to all owners. These restrictions were directed either to the practice in the exploitation of the forest or in the use of the material. In the latter direction the attempts at reducing the consumption of building timber are of special interest. Building inspectors were to approve building plans and inspect buildings to see that they were most economically constructed; that repairs were made promptly, to avoid the necessity of more extensive ones; that new buildings replacing old ones were not built higher than the old ones. In Saxony, as early as 1560, it was ordered that the whole house must be built of stone, while elsewhere, the building of stone base walls and the use of brick roofs instead of shingles was insisted upon.

Even the number of houses in any community was restricted. Fences were to be supplanted by hedges and ditches. Economies in charcoal burning, in potash manufacture for glass works, and in the turpentine industry were prescribed, and about 1600, the burning of potash for fertilizer was forbidden entirely; but these laws proved unavailing. Even in fuel-wood a saving was to be effected by using only the poorer woods and windfalls, by instituting public bake ovens (still in use in Westphalia), by improving stoves, restricting the number of bathing rooms, etc.

The consumption of fuelwood seems to have been enormous, for we find record of 200 cords used by one family in a year and of 1,200 cords or more used by the Court at Weimar during the same time.

The substitution of turf and coal for firewood was ordered in some sections in 1697 and again in 1777, but practically not until 1780 did coal come in as a substitute. Tanbark peeling was also forbidden, or only the use of bark of trees soon to be felled was allowed. For cooperage only the top-dry oak; for coffins only soft-wood, or, according to Joseph II of Austria, no wood, but black cloth was to be used. In some parts of the country the use of oak was restricted, even as early as 1562.

For regulating practices in the forest the restrictions often took only the general form of forbidding devastation, without specifying what that meant.

Then, besides establishing a diameter limit, and regulating pasture in order to protect young growth, excluding sheep and goats entirely, an attempt was made to secure at least orderly procedure in the fellings. Foresters were to designate what was to be cut even for firewood. Marking irons and hammers were employed for this purpose by the middle of the 15th century (usually two markings, by forester and by inspector to check). And this designation by officials extended even into the private forest, where finally no felling was allowed without previous permission and designation by a forester.

The use of the litter by the small farmers had grown to a large extent in these times and it was thought desirable to stop it, but this aid to the poor peasant was so necessary that only regulating the gathering of it could be insisted upon.

It must be understood that all these various attempts at securing a conservative forest use were by no means general but refer to circumscribed territory, and much of it was only paper legislation without securing actual practice.

4. Development of Forest Policy.

With the beginning of the 18th century we find, besides these prescriptions against wasteful use, and ordinances regulating the management of the properties of the princes, definite forest policies in some sections, having in view forest preservation and improvement of forest conditions, and also means of providing wood at moderate prices.

Between the years 1515 and 1590, most of the German States had already enacted ordinances which had the force of general law exercising police functions over private forest property, although in Prussia this general legislation did not occur until 1720. The objects in view with this legislation were entirely of a material kind: the conservation of resources. Besides securing the rights of the Landesherr to the chase, it was to secure a conservative use of the princely as well as private forests, since devastation of the latter would require the former to be drawn on extravagantly; it was to stave off a timber famine, and in certain localities to assure particularly the mining industry of their wood supplies. There were, however, concessions made to the privileged and influential classes of forest owners.

By the end of the 18th century, this forest police, owing to the uncontrolled harshness and the grafting practices of the lower officials had become the most hated and distasteful part of the administration.

The argument of the protective influence of forest cover did not enter into this legislation; this argument belongs to the 19th century.

Yet reboisement of torrents had already in 1788, been recognized as a proper public measure in German Austria, although active work in that direction was not begun until nearly a century later.

The rise of prices during the 17th and 18th centuries had been very considerable, doubling, trebling and even quadrupling in the first half of the 18th century. The mercantilistic doctrines of the time led, therefore, to attempts to keep prices low by prescribing rates for wood and in general by restricting and regulating wood commerce.

This was done especially by interdicting sale to outsiders, forbidding export from the small territory of the particular prince; or, at least, giving preference to the inhabitants of the territory as purchasers and at cheaper rates.

Owing to the small size of the very many principalities, the free development of trade was considerably hampered by these regulations. Sometimes also wood imports were prohibited, as for instance, in Wurttemberg, when, in 1740, widespread windfalls had occurred which had to be worked up and threatened to overstock the market.

Wood depots under government control were established in large cities, and the amount of wood to be used per capita prescribed, as in Koenigsberg (1702).

In Berlin, in 1766, a monopoly of the fuel wood market was rented to a corporation, excluding all others except by permission of the company. This was in 1785 supplanted by government administration of the woodyards.

Another such monopoly was created in the “Nutzholzhandelsgesellschaft” (Workwood sales agency) for the export trade of building materials from Kurmark and Magdeburg, which had prior right of purchase to all timber cut within given territory, the idea being to provide cheap material for the industries. This, too, came into the hands of the State in 1771.

In Prussia, to prevent overcharges, the Jews were excluded from the wood trade in 1761.

The exercise of the Forsthoheit (princely supervision), originating in the ban forests, and favored by the mercantilistic and absolutist ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries, gradually grew until the end of the 18th century to such an extent that the forest owners themselves were not allowed to cut a tree without sanction of some forest official, and could not sell any wood without permission, even down to hop-poles, although the large landed property owners vigorously resisted this assumption of supervisory powers. Much discussion and argument regarding the origin of this right to supervision was carried on by the jurists upon the basis of Roman law doctrine, and it was proved by them to be of ancient date. The degree, however, to which this supervision was developed varied considerably in the different parts of the empire, according to different economic conditions. The interference, and the protection of forests appeared more necessary, where advanced civilization and denser population created greater need for it. We find therefore that the restrictive policy was much more developed in the Southern and Western territories than in the Northern and Eastern ones, where the development begins two centuries later.

The oldest attempts of controlling private forest property are found in Bavaria (1516), Brunswick (1590) and Wurttemberg (1614). Here, forest properties were placed either entirely under the supervision of the princely forest administration, or, at least, permission for intended fellings had to be secured. Later, these restrictions were considerably reduced in rigor (Bavaria, 1789).

In Prussia, private forest property remained free from government interference well into the 18th century. An edict by the Great Elector, in 1670, merely inveighs against the devastation of forests by their owners, but refrains from any interference; and the Forstordnung of 1720 also contains only the general injunction to the owners not to treat their forests uneconomically. But, in 1766, Frederick the Great instituted a rigid supervision providing punishment for fellings beyond a special budget determined by experts. Soon after the French revolution, however, unrestricted private ownership was re-established.

Church and cloister property had always been severely supervised, similar to the Mark and other communal forest property, under the direction either of specially appointed officials or the officials of the princes. Finally, in some sections (Hesse-Kassel, 1711; Baden, 1787), the management of these communal forests was entirely undertaken by the government.

In Prussia, by the Order of 1754, the foresters of the State were charged with the supervision of the communal forests, in which they were to designate the trees to be felled and the cultures to be executed; but as there was no pay connected with this additional duty and the districts were too large, the execution of this supervision was but indifferently performed.

In 1749, a special city forest order placed the city forests in Prussia under the provincial governments, requiring for their management the employment of a forester and the inspection of his work by the provincial forestmaster.

5. Personnel.

Although all this supervision was probably more or less lax, the possibility of more general and incisive influence was increasing because the personnel to whom such supervision could be intrusted was at last coming into existence.

The men in whose hands at the beginning of the 18th century lay the task of developing and executing forest policies and of developing forestry practice came from two very different classes. The work in the woods fell naturally to the share of the huntsmen and forest guards, who by their practical life in the woods had secured some wood lore and developed some technical detail upon empiric basis. These so-called holzgerechte Jaeger (woodcrafty hunters) prepared for their duties by placing themselves under the direction of an established huntsman, who taught them what he knew about the rules of the chase, while by questioning woodchoppers, colliers, etc., and by their own observation the knowledge of woodcraft was acquired.

At the head of affairs stood the so-called cameralists or chamber officials, men who had prepared themselves by the study of philosophy, law, diplomacy and political economy for the positions of directors of finance and State administration. Rather ignorant of natural science, and without practical forestry knowledge, their efforts were not always well directed. They deserve credit, however, for having collected into encyclopædic volumes the empiric knowledge of the practitioners or Holzgerechten, and for having elaborated it more or less successfully. In this work they were joined by some of the professors of cameralia and law at the universities.

By the middle of the 18th century the hunters had so far grown in knowledge and education as to be able to produce their knowledge in books of their own. Quite a literature developed full of acrimonious warfare of opinions, as is the rule where empiricism rules supreme.

Notable progress, however, came only when hunting was placed in the background and more or less divorced from forest work.

6. Development of Silviculture.

In addition to the restrictive measures and attempts at mere conservative lumbering without much thought of reproduction, there were as early as the 16th century silvicultural methods applied to secure or foster reproduction.

Owing to differences in local conditions and difference in necessities, this development varied greatly in various sections as to the time it took place. The Western and Middle country practiced as early as the 16th century what in the Eastern country did not appear until the 18th century. The forest ordinances, from which we derive our knowledge or inferences of these conditions, prescribed, to be sure, many things that probably were not really put into practice.

a. Natural regeneration was at first merely favored, without the adoption of any very positive measures to secure it, namely, by removing the cut wood within the year, so as to give young growth a chance of establishing itself, by removing the brush so as not to smother the young growth, by keeping out cattle from the young growth (Schonung).

If the selection method of lumbering, most generally practiced without much plan, did not produce any desirable result in reproduction, the clear cutting which was practiced without system where charcoal manufacturing or river driving invited to it, did even less so. In either case, besides the defective and damaged old stubs which were left in the logging, a poor aftergrowth of undesirable character remained, as is the case in the American woods on so many areas.

As early as 1524 and 1529, we have record of a conscious attempt to secure a reproduction by leaving ten to thirty seed trees per acre; but the result was disappointing, for this practice, being applied to the shallow-rooted spruce, produced the inevitable result, namely, the seed trees were thrown by the winds.

This experience led to the prescription (in 1565) in the Palatinate to leave, besides seed trees, parts of the other stand for protection against wind damage; later, wind protection was sought by leaving parcels standing on all four sides, giving rise to a checkerboard progress of fellings or a group system of reproduction, which by the middle of the 18th century had developed into the regular strip system, applied in Austria (1766) to fir and spruce, and in Prussia (1764) to pine. And this marginal seeding method remained for a long time the favorite method for the conifers.

To avoid long strips and distribute the fellings more conveniently, v. Berlepsch (in Kassel) recommended (in 1760) the cutting in echelons (curtain method, Kulissenhieb), which insured better seeding, but also increased danger from windfalls, and was never much practiced, the disadvantages of the method being shown up especially in the Prussian Forest Order of 1788.

In the first half of the 18th century it was recognized that the wind danger would be considerably reduced by making the fellings progress from East or Northeast to West. The conception of a regular, properly located felling series was first elaborated in the Harz mountains in 1745 by von Langen, who also accentuated the necessity of preserving a wind mantle on exposed situations. Both of these propositions reappear in the Prussian Order of 1780, according to which fellings are to proceed in a breadth of twenty to thirty-five rods from East to West.

The application of a nursetree method for conifers was proposed in 1787 by v. Burgsdorf (Prussia), a dark position (Dunkelschlag) and a regeneration period of seven years being advocated.

In broadleaved forest, besides the selection forest, the natural result of the sprouting capacity of the hardwood had led to a coppice method which was extensively relied upon for fuel production. This was rarely, however, a simple coppice, for, intentionally or unintentionally, some seedlings or sprouts would be allowed to grow on, leading to a composite forest and finally to a regular coppice with standards (1569, etc.), with an intentional holding over of the valuable oak and ash for standards. Probably, however, large areas of unconsciously produced composite forest exhibited sad pictures of branchy overwood with suppressed underwood of poor sprouts, injured by game and cattle—a scrubby growth, into which crept softwoods of birch and aspen. Attempts at pruning such scrub growths into shape on quite an extensive scale are on record.

The recognition that more wood per acre could be secured by lengthening the rotation of the coppice, which seems to have been mostly twelve years or less, led to twenty and thirty year turns and finally to fifty, sixty and even eighty year rotations or so-called polewood management (Brunswick, 1745), also called Hochwald (high forest).

A full description and working plan for such a forest to be managed in eighty year rotation, the city forest of Mainz in the Odenwald and Spessart mountains, dates from 1773, and this polewood forest management became quite general after the middle of the 18th century, but in the last half of the 19th century it was generally replaced by the true high forest management under nursetrees, the experiences with the natural reproduction of conifer forest having proved the advantages of this method.

The primitive beginnings of this so-called Femelschlag method (Compartment selection or shelterwood method) are found, in 1720, in Hesse Darmstadt, where Oberforstmeister von Minnigerode prescribed regular fellings progressing from north to south, in which all material down to polewood size (in selection or virgin forest) was to be removed, excepting only a number of clean boles, one every ten to twelve paces being left for seed and nursetrees. The good results in reproduction stimulated owners of adjoining estates to imitate the method (1737).

The observation that in beech forest the young crop needed protection and succeeded better when gradually freed from the shade of the seed trees, especially on south and west aspects where drought, frost and weeds are apt to injure it on sudden exposure, led to the elaboration of the principle of successive fellings.

In the ordinance of Hanau, as early as 1736, three grades of fellings were developed, the cutting for seed, the cutting for light, which was to begin when the young crop was knee-high, and the removal cutting when the crop was high.

This method spread rapidly and was further developed by the addition (in 1767) of a preparatory cutting, to secure a desirable seedbed, and by lengthening the period of regeneration and elaborating other detail, so that, by 1790, the principles of natural regeneration under nursetrees for beech forest were fully developed in Western Germany.

In other parts, hardwood forest management was but little developed. The Prussian Forest Ordinance of 1786 contented itself with forbidding the selection method, by declaring natural regeneration, as practiced in the pineries, not applicable; while the Austrian Ordinance of 1786 recognizes only clearing followed by planting as the general rule.

b. Artificial Reforestation. Although sporadic attempts at sowing and planting are on record as early as the beginning of the 14th century, extensive artificial reforestation did not begin until the middle of the 18th century, by which time planting methods were quite fully developed.

Among the hardwoods, the oak was the first to receive special attention. By the middle of the 16th century the forest ordinances gave quite explicit instructions for planting oak in the so-called Hutewald, a combination of pasture and tree growth such as is found to-day in the bluegrass region of Kentucky; the remnants of these poor pasture woods with their gnarly oaks have lasted into modern times.

In the forest ordinance of Brunswick (1598) orders are given to plant on felling areas: “every full farmer shall every year at the proper time set out ten young oaks, every half farmer five, every farm laborer three, well taken up with roots (wildlings), and plant them in the commons or openings at Martini (November) or Mitfasten (Easter) and cover them with thorn brush” (to protect them against cattle).

About that time it was, indeed, incumbent on every marker to sow annually five oaks, or plant several young seedlings for every tree cut and to tend them a few years; and the custom existed in the low country,—afterwards (1700) introduced by law in Saxony—to plant in celebration of certain occurrences—a kind of arborday—especially to celebrate the marriage day; in order to be married the bridegroom had to prove that he had planted a certain number of oaks, which in Prussia (1719) had to be six, besides six fruit trees. The existence of this custom, now long forgotten, has given rise in the United States to the story that this is the method by which the German forest is maintained.

The method of collecting and keeping acorns over winter was well known in 1579, as is evidenced by the Hohenlohe Forest Ordinance, which advised fall sowing, but, if that did not prove successful, to prepare the ground in summer, leave it through the winter and sow in the spring.

While, in earlier times, sowing seems to have had the preference, at a later period planting was practiced, at first with wildlings, but as early as 1603 we find mention of oak nurseries.

The Prussian Order of 1720 ordered the foresters to plant oaks in the openings before Christmas, for which they were to be paid, if the trees were found alive after three years. The growing and culture of oak also interested Frederick the Great, who ordered its extension everywhere. Very explicit and correct rules for growing and transplanting them, and some to which we would not subscribe, were given in the books of the 18th century. Among the planting methods we find, in 1719 and again in 1776, one similar to the Manteuffel method of planting in mounds.

While oak culture was especially fostered in Northwestern Germany, the cultivation of conifers first received attention in the southwest, and in the same manner which was inaugurated by the Nuremberg seed dealer in 1368. A new idea, introduced in the Palatine Forest Ordinance (1565) and in the Bavarian Forest Ordinance (1568), was the prescription, to soak the seed before use and sow mixed with sawdust or sand, bringing the seed under with brush or iron rakes.

Carlowitz (1713) taught well the methods of collecting, extracting and keeping the seed, and even proposed seed tests. The seedbeds were to be made as for carrots, dense sowings to be thinned, and the thinnings transplanted into nursery rows, the seedbeds to be covered with moss and litter to protect them against heaving; he also discusses the question of cost. The adaptation of plant material to different sites—conifers where oaks are not suitable—was also understood (Bavarian Forest Ordinance, 1683).

As long as the old method of extracting the seed in hot stoves or ovens prevailed, conifer sowings gave but indifferent results.

In the pine forests of Prussia, during the second half of the 18th century, the method of sowing the cones on large waste and sand barrens, where the sun would make them release the seed, was practised, and before Brémontier had written his celebrated mémoire sur les dunes, sanddunes had been recovered with pine plantations in Germany in the manner which is still in vogue.

The planting of conifers came into practice much later, and then it was mostly done with wildlings. Opinions differing as to the value of sowing or planting, it was erroneously held until the 19th century that planting was less successful and too costly in comparison with the small harvest yield, which necessitated cheapness of operations. It was only towards the end of the 18th century that planting of pine was resorted to, but merely for repairing fail places in sowings and natural regeneration, and then with a ball of earth (1779), using a hollow spade,—a costly method. The cost of a certain plantation made in 1751 is, however, reported as less than $3.00 per M., in 1770 as low as 70 cents per M. To cheapen the operations the labor was exchanged for wood, pasture or other materials or advantages.

In Prussia, in 1773, all recipients of free wood had to do service in the cultures; in 1785, every farmer had to furnish a certain amount of cones or acorns. The method, lately adopted in Russia, came into vogue in Prussia in 1719, namely, of charging, besides the value of the wood, a toll to be paid into the planting fund (about 7% of the value). This method was also imitated elsewhere.

The use of the Waldfeldbau (combined farm and forest culture) was also inaugurated for the purpose of cheapening the cost of plantations (by v. Langen in 1744) when the great movement for reforesting wastes and openings began, the tree seed being sown with the grain either at once or after farm use for some years.

Regular annual planting budgets (of $50—$100—$200) were inaugurated in Brunswick by v. Langen in 1745; and in 1781, the Prussian forest administration had attained to entirely modern planting plans and annual planting budgets.

It was no wonder that the fear of a timber famine and the apparent hopelessness of bringing improvement into the existing forest conditions created anxiety and a desire to plant rapid growers, such as birch, willow, aspen, alder; the planting of the White Birch became so general in the beginning of the 18th century that a regular betulomania is recorded corresponding to the incipient catalpomania in the United States.

At that time, to be sure, firewood was still the main concern, and the use of these rapid growing species had some justification. But where birch was mixed in spruce plantations its baneful effects consisting in whipping off the spruce tips and injuring its neighbors were soon recognized, and much trouble was experienced in getting rid of the unwelcome addition.

The Robinia, which had been brought from America in 1638, was also one of the trees recommended in the middle of the 18th century and was much planted until Hartig pointed out that the expectations from it were entirely misplaced.

Of course no building material could be expected from these species, hence the larch, also a rapid grower, was transplanted from the Alps (1730 in Harz mountains), and its use was extended, as with us, to conditions for which it was not adapted.

It was principally a desire for novelty and perhaps for better, especially foreign things, that led to the planting of North American species in parks during the first half of the 18th century. But, although F. A. J. von Wangenheim’s very competent writings on the American forest-flora and on the laws of naturalization (1787) stimulated interest in that direction, the use of American species for forest planting was not inaugurated till nearly 100 years later, with the single exception of the White Pine (P. strobus), of which large numbers were planted.

7. Improvement of the Crop.